What do you think about infant salvation in light of Romans 10:13-14?
13 for "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
This passage implies that one must believe in order to be saved, but in order to believe don't we have to understand what it is we are believing? Can an infant possess such an understanding? I'm also interested in how this applies to those who have never heard the gospel.
Ditto the previous comment. And what do you believe happens to small children when they die? How are they able to come to saving faith?
I agree with the fact that there's no biblical justification for this belief. But there is a logical one. Most would agree that children are not able to make the rational thought processes to discern the difference between right and wrong.
I'd use the same argument you use -- God is just. And if a cihld isn't capable of making a real decision to accept Christ, out of his mercy I would assume he wouldn't condemn them to hell.
I'm interested in your take on this. What do you think?
I disagree with you both. Matt describes the normative process for many people, but the bottom line is you need a saving faith, and as we are told in Ephesians 2 that faith is a gift from God. If a child is saved, it is because he has received that gift. I won't tell God he can only give the gift of faith to those old enough to understand it. And Casey, I am not willing to assume that God will do this or that--but only what the bible says--which to me is quite clear: from conception we deserve hell and God would be just to condemn us all, and none of us--infants or adults--"choose" God, only God's grace, whom he can bestow upon anyone-regardless of age--will bring a person to faith.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
This passage speaks of the just condemnation of those who "clearly perceived". They are without excuse. So there is the implication that if they have not clearly perceived (infants and mentally disabled) they do have an excuse.
Also in II Sam 12 David's sick child that he fasted and wept for finally died. After the child's death, David stops weaping and says that they would be together again (v. 23). The child was in heaven. Nowhere is there any indication that David believed this child had faith. How then did David know that he would be able to go to his son? Answer, infants who die go to be with the Lord.
John MacArthur does a great job with this topic:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC.../MAC/80-
242.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC.../MAC/80-
243.htm
If a child is saved, it is because he has received that gift. I won't tell God he can only give the gift of faith to those old enough to understand it.
That's where I was coming from, but I got thrown for a loop with that Romans passage. In essence, I thought, with respect to those who have never heard the Gospel message, that they could still be saved because salvation is something external that is given to us, like you say. Same deal with infants and the mentally disables. What do you think of that though?
Hey, just testing a bit here;
You say that apart from Christ's righteousness the children are abhorent in God''s sight. But while we were yet sinners God died for us.
Why did God die for the abhorent. I mean...He loved the abhorent for some reason enough to die for them. We where abhorent as well (still are in the flesh).
Why would God love the abhorent. I mean...is it all a "to-make-His-glory-known" response?
Is it true, in your mind and paradigm, that God is love. Does love drive God's theology? His actions as well?
David, like you I don't agree with the age of accountability theology.
But from what I understand proponents of it often use the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites as a biblical example.
In that instance, only those over 20 at the time of Israels sin were condemned to never see the promised land (with the exception of Joshua, of course).
By that way, I am Matt O, not the other Matt (Hi other Matt). I asked the question about God loving the abhorent.
peace.
You can just call me Matt W. 
A few comments:—
1. Faith is not a 'stuff' (the language of 'having' and 'giving' faith can be misleading on this matter), but rather is a particular way of being in relationship. The Bible seems happy to claim that even infant children can be found in such a relationship in covenant (e.g. Psalm 22:9-10; 71:5-6) without needing to speak in terms of their having supernatural cognitive powers.
2. Whilst it is certainly true that infants cannot have faith in its full form (contra Lutherans), Reformed theologians have generally held that infants can have faith in 'seed' form (contra Anabaptists). The infant born into a faithful Christian family and baptized in the Church is truly a member of a faithful community, even though they do not have mature faith.
The problem is that so many conceive of faith as some invisible presence in the heart that they fail to see that biblical faith is conceived of as far more visible. The idea of a faith that is sufficiently external for the baptized infant to be a true partaker of it is an alien concept to many people.
In the Bible the Church is thought of as the 'household of faith'. As human beings our ability to think rationally, to properly interact with the world, to understand ourselves, other people and the world around us is not something that we are born with. We do not have a fully-formed identity that lies inside just waiting to express itself. Rather our identity is formed as we live in relationship with others. Much of what makes me peculiarly 'me' (in the deepest sense) is a result of being brought up in a particular community.
The infant brought up within a faithful home should not be thought of as having some secret fully-formed identity just waiting to emerge. Rather that infant's identity is inseparable from the fact that the child is a member of a believing family. It is only our strong individualism that prevents us from realizing such things.
3. The child born in an unbelieving family is to be regarded as a sinner, not because they have committed personal sin, but because of the relational matrix in which they find themselves. They are 'in Adam', they are conceived in Sin (conceived of as a realm, among other things) under the rule of Satan — consequently they are sinners. The fact that they will go on to commit actual sin merely serves to reveal the fact that they were sinners already.
The claim that such infants are 'sinners' and under God's condemnation before they have actually 'forged their own identity' scandalizes most people in an individualistic society. The whole idea of 'age of accountability' is often used to escape the fact that infants in unbelieving homes are 'unclean' (1 Corinthians 7:14) and under the wrath and condemnation of God.
God does not look at infants as individuals abstracted from relationship and that is what we must not forget.
The child born into a Christian family is to be regarded as holy even before they do any si
(continued from the previous comment)
The child born into a Christian family is to be regarded as holy even before they do any sinful or righteous action.
4. The question: 'do infants dying in infancy go to heaven?' is far too general. We can be absolutely assured that infants from faithful homes who die in infancy will go to heaven. This is the position that the Reformed churches generally hold to (see Article 17 of the First Head of Doctrine in the Canons of Dordt and the conclusion of the document).
We must, however, be agnostic when it comes to the infants of unbelieving homes. They have no promise on which to rely. The inspired psalmist sung about the happiness of those who dashed the infants of Babylon against the rock (Psalm 137:8-9). God would be perfectly just and would not go against His Word were He to send the infant seed of His enemies to eternal hell (Deuteronomy 5:9).
Lots of good discussion here. Alas, I am on my way to Pittsburgh and won't be back until Tuesday. Carry on!!
James does utter that mercy triumphs over justice. How can know the depths of this 'mercy.'
I believe that *the* organizing paradigm of theology needs be the love of God (which is what we is per 1 John, the goal of our instruction per 1 Timothy 1, and the chief end of man per Deuteronomy 6:10). Also, Christ dies for the sins of the cosmos back per 1 John 2 (I know reformed interpretation curbs this a bit).
So, looking at the nature of God via Holy writ, I can conclude that he *wants* to save all and desires that all are saved.
I do understand that those committed to a 'reformed matrix' of the faith would not necessarily share these perspectives and conclusions (the passages I pointed out don't 'seem' to have prominence in this matrix).
However, fwiw....
peace,
Matt
I would agree with David that we are sinful from birth. God's holiness is so perfect that He cannot tolerate sin in His presence (even unknown sin). This is why the priests in the OT had to offer sacrifices for the unknown sins (Lev 4:27; Num 15:28; etc). God holds people accountable for every sin. Yet because God is gracious and merciful, He provides a way for these sins to be atoned for.
Matt,
I also believe that there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all of mankind, but we must also both agree that there is a sense in which He does not desire it. There is something else God desires more than the salvation of all men (whether the most highly valued item is "His glory" or man's "free will" depends on your theological bent).
Let me bounce this off you: the doctrine of original sin is self-evident, no debate there. But a persons predisposition to sin, is not the same thing as sin behavior. If we are to believe that we are condemned by virtue of a sin inheritance from Adam, than that would have rendered Jesus a sinner. Does that make sense? Scripture says we will be judged on the last day by "what we have done" not what we were tempted to do, or inclined to do.
There's more to say on this, but it requires more examination on my part, so I'll stop there. What do you think?
Hey, Brett.
Yes, I agree that there is a place and time when God does not desire the salvation of certain men (reprobation).
Let's agree that, while God knew who these would be before the creation of the world, they became 'hardened' after repetitive appeals from God Himself (see Bible), who "desires all men to be saved."
Yes, God is holy. Let us also remember that Jesus (in whom the fullness dwelt bodily) walked and talked among sinners, and even broke bread with them. He was very much in the presence of sinners. Let's not make God "too holy," if you know what I mean. (attention reader: please give some thought before you rip your shirt
Yes, may our 'theology' not obscure 'Theos'.
peace to you,
Matt
Sorry for the double postings. Don't know why that happened.
This is Matt O, by the way.
cheers.
If we are to believe that we are condemned by virtue of a sin inheritance from Adam, than that would have rendered Jesus a sinner.
Why do you say that..........God is Jesus's father not Adam.
Hi Adam,
Well, from what we can see, Scripture says that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. So, while he took on 'flesh' he did not take on sinful nature (yet he was tempted like we are - yet, overcame).
I know it may sound like a lot, but it is the type of thing you may want to sit with as you read some well-written Christologies (study of the nature of Christ).
Your questions are the good ones - straightforward and honest.
peace to you,
Matt
The whole idea of an age of accountability is there to balance the injustice of "believe and be saved". A child who has not progressed to the point of even the simplest belief would be condemned. Although it seems reasonable that it need not be a child only. Someone with diminished mental capacity might get a "free pass". Imagine a child who is "below the age of accountibility" and on the first day of his "accountibility" steals a cookie then dies to face judgement. Eternal punishment for a stolen cookie? Of course not. We are condemned by what we are not what we do or will do. The sinful acts come out of a sinful nature. All humans have it from birth. How many children might God have elected to salvation? All? None? I have to say we trust God in these matters.
Tim, let's be careful not to place God under human judgment. This is the argument use by many atheists: Even if a person spent their entire life in willful disobedience to God, and murdered millions of people, how can eternal, infinite punishment be appropriate for only 75 yrs of sin?
You see there is a reason that murder of a person can get you the death penalty, while the murder of a dog may only get you a fine and the murder of a mosquito begets no punishment. There is more to justice than the nature of the crime (eg stealing a cookie). The greater weight seems to be the nature of the one offended. If the being offended is of infinite value and worth then the punishment must be eternal.
I am not arguing at this point the rest of your post, I just wanted to caution saying that a stolen cookie, or just a lie, or just a murder cannot be worthy of eternal condemnation.
Btw, you misferenced Psalm 51:5.
IMHO, it is unhelpful to view this in terms of degrees of punishment for particular sins. The important thing is not how many or how few sins a person has committed. There will, of course, be degrees of punishment, but that is not the determining factor of someone's going to hell.
The important thing, to my mind, is the fact that the child born to unbelievers is born outside of the people of God, under the rule and dominion of Satan, is alienated from God's presence, under the curse and is subject to eternal condemnation. It is the situation into which they are born and not the particular sins that they commit that it is the primary issue. For such an infant to be saved would take something outside of the ordinary workings of God's grace, I believe.
The infant seed of believers, however, are born to covenant people of God and are claimed by God as His own, they are brought into the kingdom of God through the waters of Baptism (of course, if a child dies before Baptism they will certainly be saved) and are only alienated from God's presence if they apostatize later on in life.
We are saved by being translated from one kingdom into another. The child of unbelievers is born into the kingdom of darkness. The child of believers is invited by God to enter the kingdom of Christ in Baptism. Prior to Baptism they are not 'in' to the same degree that they are afterwards. However, they are undoubtedly to be viewed even beforehand as children of promise, loved and claimed by God.
I find this discussion quite fruitful. I was baptized as an infant and raised in a tradition where that was the norm. My wife was baptized at age 10 after her profession of faith, and raised in a tradition of believers baptism. We were attending a Reformed church when our daughter, now 4 years old, was born. We had quite a discussion among ourselves and with our pastor about baptism. So, this is of quite personal relevance to me.
Ultimately, I relented on my push for infant baptism. I have nothing against infant baptism, but I came to realize that the focus is slightly different. In infant baptism it is the parents making the promise to raise the child in God's covenant. In believer's baptism, it is the baptizee making the promise to live in God's covenant.
I find Al's line of thought to mesh well with a subsequent study I've done on the NT verses about the Kingdom of Heaven/God. Ultimately it is about who you recognize as having soverignty over your life -- the self-giving sacrifice to others as Christ showed, or the self-preserving fear of the flesh.
So we are acting as the parents promise during infant baptism: we're raising her to recognize God's authority and reject the authority of the world. She's a bright and insightful child, so I suspect she'll ask for believer's baptism at a young age like her mother.
I guess what I'm taking a long time to say is that I believe infant baptism is perfectly valid, but I'm not convinced it should be preferred to believer's baptism.
In my paper on infant baptism, I deal with this issue of original sin and how it relates to believers' children. See here:
http://www.timgallant.org/
infant...fantbaptism.htm
Regarding whether infants are held accountable, the answer is actually quite easy: yes. We know that, because they do die. This means that God reckons them "in Adam." That is the logic behind Romans 5.13.
Whether God goes further and reckons them "in Christ" is a further question. I am simply pointing that this issue of reckoning de facto excludes any notion of a "king's X" as far as accountability. Even if we were to assert that every child dying in infancy goes to heaven (which I frankly cannot claim), that fact would not be on the basis of non-accountability. It would have to be on the basis of some form of post-accountability "extra grace."
FWIW.
"And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
A great text to quote, disproving the age of accountability. Because apart from the preaching of repentance, God was going to destroy Nineveh. Meaning wrath was going to fall upon all those children too.
I don't see any preaching of repentance in Jonah's message. As it is recorded in the book, as Jonah preached it, and as the Ninevites heard it, it was unrelieved judgement.
The point is not whether Jonah specified anything about repentance. The point is, according to the passage you cited, that was indeed God's intention. Almost universally throughout Scripture, pronunciations of judgment are intended as calls to repentance, whether a promise of grace is explicit or not. In this case, God makes this clear to Jonah after the fact.
what if we don't even have a soul until the age of accountability? why would a soul's eternity be in the hands of an infant? why would it be in the hands of a teenager for that matter?
It also seems that we are trying to understand something that 1. we have no control over and 2. there is no action to be taken with either conclusion.
and furthermore, why does a god, that wants to reveal truth to everyone, make everyone think they are correct when they have such differing viewpoints? believers tend to believe and back it up by saying they have more faith that they are right. or they prayed about it and god told them this or that. why did god tell one person something different than another? and why does god make these and even more relevant issues so unclear?
My own personal logic on this issue came to a similar conclusion as yours: that God may grant faith to infants although they can't express it the way older people can. However, I was just reading the "Question Box archives" at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals website and noticed in their answer regarding age of accountability the following statement:
"traditionally Reformed Christians hold that such children are elect, and are saved by Christ apart from faith because they are never in a situation where faith is possible: they pass from infancy (where faith is not possible) to the presence of Christ (where faith is not necessary). (The same is true for retarded and other impaired children). They are an exception to the biblical doctrine of salvation through faith alone, and one for which countless believers are grateful to the Lord."
I thought you might find this explanation interesting or worthy of further study on the matter. If this is the traditional Reformed teaching, it bears checking out.
Commenting by HaloScan
